AKA THIS AGAIN.  This week’s episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause.  Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago.  Law starts at (07:20).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9008534/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Advertisements

It’s Dissenting Opinion Season

Posted: March 10, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

This week covers the recent opinions in Timbes v. Indiana (Excessive fines and the Incorporation Doctrine), Madison v. Alabama (Death Penalty Capacity, and Garza v. Idaho (Ineffective Assistance for Appeals), but more importantly, it’s time for wild dissents and the Men who love them.  Law starts at (5:00) and Nazim spoils Infinity War and JAWS if you haven’t seen it yet.

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8914103/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Census? They Hardly Knew Us!

Posted: March 3, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

This immaculately titled episode covers the case of Department of Commerce v. New York as a play in two parts.  The first part discusses the policy merits of asking a citizenship question on the census, the second predicts whether the lower court’s ruling removing the question will hold up.  Without giving it away, there’s a good chance you won’t like one of the part.  Law starts at (07:05).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8826665/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

a_002

Welcome back to our monthly prediction-a-thon. Please give generously to those who get the answers wrong. They need it. If you’re lost, you’re in good company. This is a thing where we try to predict how some US Supreme Court cases are going to turn out, and then give the person who guesses best bragging rights. Austin from Texas was the best guesser for the past couple of terms, so that explains why the League has been renamed after him. Or her. I have not pantsed him to check.

Yet.

I’m behind, as usual, on some housekeeping. The fact that I am in the lead over my cohost has little to do with the fact that I haven’t re-tallied the score in a long time. It’s just that I prefer lounging in mid-century modern garments, smoking a corn-cob pipe and stroking a cat while contemplating possible alternate realities.

None of this is made easier by the fact that there is only one case this month. Better not screw it up.

Link to the March 2019 ballot.

Links to prior ballots.

Booze & Federalism

Posted: February 24, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

In honor of the Verona High School Debate Team (the East Coast’s best High School Debate Team obv), Brett and Nazim debate the value of winning a boat, numbers, state flags, bacon, federalism, getting drunk, buying birth control on Amazon, Constitutional Amendments and Tennessee Wine and Spirits Assoc. v. Blair, which asks the Court whether the 21st Amendment supersedes the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Law starts at (11:26).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8724920/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Math Fights: Civil Forfeiture

Posted: February 17, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

The case of Timbs v. Indiana poses a very outcome dependent question of whether or not civil forfeiture is unfair and poorly managed, so to keep this podcast interesting, Brett and Nazim go through each argument for and against and assign a numerical value to really see what they think at the end of the day.  The law was supposed to start at (05:06), but it gets side-tracked with DMV stories and truly starts at (09:18).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8563199/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

The Abortion Cases of Tomorrow, TODAY!

Posted: February 10, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

In response to the Supreme Court’s late night session last Thursday, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s recent injunction of the Louisiana Abortion Statute, and the Court’s reversal of a death penalty stay in Alabama for a defendant who was not provided his religious counselor of choice during the execution.  Law starts at (2:00).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8583182/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Is Congress Incompetent? A Play in Two Parts

Posted: February 3, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

I know that title is supposed to be a cliff-hanger, but the answer is yes.  In support of such a thesis, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s holdings in New Prime v. Oliveira and U.S. v. Stokeling, which both discuss how the Supreme Court is generally being used to clean up poorly written statutes.  The play concludes with a great Dr. Pepper analogy.  Law starts (01:52).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8485739/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

a_002

Okay, so, I apologize for the mess I’ve made for the past couple of ballots. But, I have an excuse: it was Brett’s fault. I won’t say more. Anyway, this is a thing where we compete to predict the outcomes of some US supreme court cases covered here recently. If you need rules, here they are.

Otherwise, here is the February ballot. And, if you missed them because of all the ferrets, here are the January, December, and November ballots.

Anti Trust Falls

Posted: January 27, 2019 by Nazim in Uncategorized

This week’s episode covers a case that is not even a fraction of as delicious as it sounds, Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, which covers whether Apple is engaging in Anti-Trust violations for how they allow apps on to your iPhone.  This episode goes off the rails early and often, so while the law starts at (05:37), you might miss which host doesn’t know how to use Microsoft Excel and which host is a master of the DARK WEB (the answer may surprise you!).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8390051/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!